m] · The field sparrow (Spizella pusilla) and grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savan-na-urn) are...

m] Technical Report SERDP-98-11I I September 1998Ilgll

JS Army Corps)f EngineersVaterways Experiment

;tation

Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program

Species Profile: Bachman’s Sparrow(Ainmphi/a aestivalis) on MilitaryInstallations in the Southeastern United States

by Wilma A. Mitchell

Approved For Public Release; Distribution Is Unlimited

mSERDP

!3rateolc Environmental Researchu- and Development Program

Prepared for Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of EngineersImprcwng M&ismn Read!ness through

Enwronmental Research

The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising,publication, or promotional purposes. Citation of trade namesdoes not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the useof such commercial products.

The findings of this report are not to be construed as anofficial Department of the Army position, unless so desig-nated by other authorized documents.

(la PRINTEDONRECYCLEDPAPER

Strategic Environmental Research Technical Report SERDP-98-11

and Development Program September 1998

Species Profile: Bachman’s Sparrow(Aimophila aestivalis) on MilitaryInstallations in the Southeastern United States

by Wilma A. Mitchell

U.S. Army Corps of EngineersWaterways Experiment Station3909 Halls Ferry RoadVicksburg, MS 39180-6199

Final report

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited

Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of EngineersWashington, DC 20314-1000

n

[6]I I /

ll~li /’

US Army Corpsof EngineersWaterways Experiment

Station ~A [>~~ii 4’1

i

,,

kfi$s+”g““FOR INFORMATION CONTACT

!?/ /’ WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION3909 HALLS FERRY ROAD

“C.B. II dJRG, MISSISSIPPI 39180-6199

PHONE (601 ) 6342502

Waterways Experiment Station Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Mitchell, Wilma A.Species profile : Bachman’s sparrow (Aimophi/a aestiva/is) on military installations in the

Southeastern United States / by Wilma A. Mitchell ; prepared for U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers.

30p. : ill. ; 28 cm.—~echnical repon; SERDP-98-1 1)Includes bibliographic references.1. Aimophila — Speciation — United States. 2. Sparrows — Speciation — United States.

3. Endangered species. 1.United States. Army. Corps of Engineers. II. U.S. Army EngineerWaterways Experiment Station. Ill. Strategic Environmental Research and DevelopmentProgram (U. S.) IV. Title. V. Title: Bachman’s sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis) on militaryinstallations in the Southeastern United States. VI. Series: Technical report (U.S. ArmyEngineer Waterways Experiment Station) ; SERDP-98-11.TA7 W34 no.SERDP-98-l 1

The work described in this report was authorized by the Strategic Environmental Re-

search and Development Program (SERDP), Washington, DC. The work was performed

under the SERDP study entitled “Regional Guidelines for Managing Threatened and En-

dangered Species Habitats.” Mr. Brad Smith was Executive Director, SERDP.

This report was prepared by Dr. Wilma A. Mitchell, Natural Resources Division

(NRD), Environmental Laboratory (EL), U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment

Station (WES), Vicksburg, MS. WES technical review was provided by Mr. Chester O.

Martin and Dr. Richard A. Fischer, EL. Report review was provided by Dr. John B.

Dunning, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, and Mr. Michael Guilfoyle, University

of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg. Mr. Martin and Ms. Ann-Marie Trame, Land Man-

agement Laboratory, U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratories, werePrincipal Investigators for the work unit. Dr. Fischer managed and coordinated prepara-

tion of species profiles for this study.

This report was prepared under the general supervision of Dr. Michael F. Passmore,

Chief, Stewardship Branch, NRD; Dr. Dave Tazik, Chief, NRD; and Dr. John Harrison,

Director, EL.

At the time of publication of this report, Dr. Robert W. Whalin was Director of WES.

COL Robin R. Cababa, EN, was Commander.

This report should be cited as follows:

Mitchell, W. A. (1998). “Species profile: Bachman’s sparrow (Aimophila

ae.stivalis) on military installations in the southeastern United States,”Technical Report SERDP-98-11, U.S. Army Engineer WaterwaysExperiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Species Profile: Bachman’s Sparrow(Aimophila aestivalis)

Photograph by Fenn M. Holden, courtesy of the FloridaAudubon Society, Maitland, FL.

Taxonomy

Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AvesOrder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..passefifo~esFamily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. EmbefizidaeGermslspecies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Aim~phila aestiValisOther Common Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pinewoods sparrow

Description

The Bachman’s sparrow is a large sparrow with a flat forehead, large bill, and long

rounded tail (National Geographic Society 1983). The adult is 14.0 to 15.9 cm (5.5 to

6.3 in.) long and weighs 18.4 to 22.6 g (0.6 to 0.8 OZ) (Wolf 1977). Body plumage is

gray above and heavily streaked with chestnut or dark brown on the head, neck, and back

(Wolf 1977, Peterson 1980, NationaJ Geographic Society 1983, Stokes and Stokes 1996).

The breast and sides of the body and head are huffy-gray, and the belly is whitish. Sub-species vary in shading from reddish brown in the western part of the range to grayishbrown in the southern part (National Geographic 1983, Stokes and Stokes 1996). Thehead has a broad, grayish stripe above the eye and a thin dark line behind the eye; thesides of the neck are streaked with russet (Wolf 1977, Peterson 1980, National Geo-graphic Society 1983).

Species Profile: Bachman’s Sparrow

Wings range from 5.5 to 6.6 cm (2.2 to 2.6 in.) in length, with dark-brown primariesand secondaries and olive-brown to fuscous tertials tipped with hazel or buff (Wolf1977). The tail measures 6.0 to 6.6 cm (2.4 to 2.6 in.), is olive-brown or dark-brown, andis bordered with gray or olive-brown. The upper mandible is dark brown, and the lowermandible is yellowish brown. The iris is brown, and the feet and legs are pink or flesh-colored (Drilling 1985, Stokes and Stokes 1996). The adult plumage undergoes an ex-tended body molt during spring and summer and a complete molt in autumn (LeGrandand Schneider 1992).

The juvenile has a distinctive white eye ring and streaking on the throag breas~ andsides (National Geographic Society 1983). Fledglings have heavily streaked breasts(LeGrand and Schneider 1992). Soon after fledging, birds undergo a partial molt thatproduces a plumage with adult body feathers and juvenile wing and tail feathers(Willoughby 1986). The breast is spotted and intermediate in appearance between thestreaked fledgling and unmarked adult pattern. During the Fti fall, juveniles complete afull molt and become essentially indistinguishable from adults (L@rand and Schneider1992). Molting twice during the f~st 6 months is an unusual pattern that may serve toreplace plumage severely worn by the abrasive habitat (Willoughby 1986).

Shy and secretive, the Bachman’s sparrow may best be located and identified by itssong (National Geographic Society 1983). The song consists of two parts: one clear,whistled introductory note, followed by a variable trill or warble on a different pitch.The series may be higher or lower in pitch than the introductory note, and consecutivesongs usually vary between higher and lower series (LeGrand and Schneider 1992). Themale sings from an open perch and may still be heard in late summer when most othersongbirds have stopped seasonal singing (National Geographic Society 1983).

Similar Species

The field sparrow (Spizella pusilla) and grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savan-na-urn) are both similar to the Bachrnan’s sparrow. However, the field sparrow issmaller in size and has a white eye ring and smaller pink bill (Peterson 1980). The grass-hopper sparrow has a light crown stripe and a sharp tail that is only about half as long asthe rounded tail of the Bachman’s sparrow; it inhabits meadows rather than pine savan-nas. The juvenile Bachrnan’s sparrow has a white eye ring and streaked huffy breast,which give it a similar appearance to the Lincoln’s sparrow (Melospiza lincobzi~; how-ever, the latter does not breed in the South.

4 Species Profile: Bachman’s Sparrow

Status

Legal designation

Federal. The Bachman’s sparrow was a candidate species (C2) for listing as eitherthreatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). However, theUSFWS discontinued the designation of C2 species as candidates for listing (50 CFR 17,28 February 1996). The Bachrnan’s sparrow is considered to be a species of concern, butmore biological research and field study are needed to resolve its conservation status.

State. The Bachman’s sparrow is listed as endangered in Indiana, Illinois, Missouri,Virginia, and Tennessee; threatened in Oklahoma and Kentucky; species of concern inNorth Carolina; rare (similar to threatened) in Georgia; and extirpated in Pennsylvaniaand Maryland (Drilling 1985). It is listed as a species of special concern in West Virginia(West Virginia Department of Natural Resources 1987). The Bachman’s sparrow is con-sidered to be potentially threatened throughout the southern United States (Dunning andWatts 1990).

Military installations

Table 1 represents the known status of the Bachrnan’s sparrow on military installations inthe southeastern United States.

Distribution and numbers

The former breeding range of the Bachman’s sparrow extended from south-centralMissouri through central and northeastern Illinois, central Indiana, and central Ohio tosouthwestern Pemsylvania and central Maryland in the east, south to the Gulf coast andsouth-central Florida, and west to eastern Oklahoma and Texas (Dunning 1993). How-ever, the northern portion of the range has contracted, and this species is now generallyabsent (or very local) north of North Carolina, Kentucky, and Arkansas (Figure 1). It isconsidered accidental in New York and New Jersey (LeGrand and Schneider 1992).

The Bachman’s sparrow is a permanent resident in southern States and migratory inthe north (Dunning 1993). Fall migration begins in mid-to-late August with the latestknown departure date being September 26 for Kentucky (Weston 1968). The specieswinters from southeastern North Carolina along the Atlantic coast to southern Floridaand westward through the Gulf States to eastern Texas (American Ornithologists’ Union(AOU) 1983, National Geographic Society 1983, Stokes and Stokes 1996). Birds arecasual in winter in extreme southern Florida, especially in the Everglades National Park(Dunning 1993). Winter status of the Bachman’s sparrow is uncertain because thesparrow’s secretive nature, including nonvocalization, renders it difficult to inventoryin winter (LeGrand and Schneider 1992).

In the early 1900s, the Bachman’s sparrow expanded its range into Ohio, West Virginia,Pennsylvania, Illinois, and southern Canada, probably in response to farm abandonmentand deforestation across the region (Eifrig 1915, Brooks 1938, Weston 1968). This

Species Profile: Bachman’sSparrow 5

Table 1Status of the Bachman’s Sparrow on Military Installations in theSoutheastern United States

State Installation Status on Installation

AR L~le Rock Air Force Base (AFB) Documented onsite;several individualsobserved on BlackjackDrop Zone locatednorthof the main base (Lance Peacock,Personal Communication,1997).

Camp Robinson Documented onsite.

AL Fort Rucker Documented onsite.

Fort McClellan; Pelham Range Potential:“Bachman’ssparrowswere notdetected on Pelham Range, buttheiroccurence is stillconsidered Iikeiy...mostsuitable-lookingareas are the frequentlyburned Large Impact and Small Arms areas”(Alabama Natrual Heritage Program 1994).

Anniston Army Depot Potential.

FL Egiin AFB Documented onsite.

Naval Alr StMon Cecil Field Documented onsite (Hank Cochran,Personal Communication,1996).

Avon Park Air Force Range Documented onsite.

Tyndall AFB Documented onsite; nestson installation(Stephen Shea, Personal communication,1996).

Camp Blanding Documented onsite.

GA Forl Gordon Documented onsite.Fort Stewart Documented onsite:285 localitieson Fort

Stewart (The Nature Conservancy 1995).Townsend Bombing Range (administrated Documented onsite (Sargent Edwh Bors,by Marine Corps Air Station, Beaufort, SC) Personal communication, 1997).

FOR Benning Documented onsite.

Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany Documented onsite.

MS Camp Shelby Potential.

NC Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune Documented onsite; 56 territories locatedduring 1990-91 inventory (Leblond et al.1994).

Fort Bragg Documented onsite.

Sc Fort Jackson Documented onsite.

LA Fort Polk Documented onsite (Hart and Lester 1993).

VA Fort Pickett Documented onsite (Alan Dyck, PemonaiCommunication, 1996). Thought to beextirpated from the State until 1986, when itwas rediscovered in Brunswick County, not farfrom Fort Ptiett. Some Iobloliypine-grasslandsavannas of the Impact Area Southwest andImpact Area Southeast conservation sitesprovide ideal nesting habtiat. These savannasand similar habitat at Fort A.P. Hill appear tobe the last remaining suitable habitat for thespecies in the State of Virginia (Fort PickettNatural Resources Survey).

Fort A. P. Hill Documented; found only in frequently burnedpine savanna habtit of the controlled accessarea (Fort A.P. Hill Natural Resources Survey).

SpeciesProfile: Bachman’sSparrow

Figure 1. Distribution of the Bachman’s sparrow in the southeastern United States (modified from Dunning1993)

expansion peaked between 1915 and 1922 (Brooks 1938). Populations in these areas hadbegun to decline by the 1930s, and the range had contracted to its current limits by the1970s (LeGrand and Schneider 1992). This species is nearly extirpated in the Northeast,with only a few current breeding season records from extreme southern Virginia. Datasuggest that some populations in the southern part of the range may also have disap-peared (Jackson 1985, Peterjohn 1987).

The Bachman’s sparrow is locally distributed in many parts of its range, and muchseemingly suitable habitat is not occupied (Duming 1993). Population data for this spe-cies are limited. Hamel (1992) presented mean breeding densities of Bachman’s sparrowsin longleaf pine (l%nzfspalustris) —slash pine (P. elliottii) forests ranging from 2 birdsper hectare (0.8 birds per acre) in sawtimber stands to 10 birds per hectare (4 birds peracre) in sapling/poletimber stands. McKitrick (1979) and Dunning (1993) reported muchsmaller densities for the Bachman’s sparrow. Maximum densities of singing males inSouth Carolina were 4.1 to 4.8 birds per 10 ha (1.6 to 1.9 per 10 acres) in suitable habitat(Dunning 1993), whereas densities in south-central Florida were approximately 0.3 birdsper 10 ha (0.12 birds per 10 acres) in small suitable patches within unsuitable habitat(McKitrick 1979).

Species Profile: Bachman’s Sparrow

Life History and Ecology

Territories

Breeding territories areused for both nesting and feeding @unningl993). Territ-orialdefense takes the form of countersinking between adjacent males for periods of 0.5 to1 hr or longer (Dr. John Dunning, Personal Communication, 1998). Each male defendsits territory by singing from an open perch (Stokes and Stokes 1996). Song perches arefairly conspicuous and are typically located in the tops of shrubs or saplings in clearcutsor old fields (Weston 1968, Dorsey 1976). In open pinewoods, song perches are com-monly dead lower branches or stubs of living pine trees and range from 1.5-3 m (4.9-9.8 ft) (Meanley 1959) to 3-6 m (9.8-19.7 ft) above the ground (LeGrand and Schneider1992). Singing occurs during all hours of the day, peaking in early morning and eveningand sometimes continuing into moonlit nights (Brooks 1938). In the Northeast, singingbegan immediately upon arrival of males in April (Weston 1968). In the South, wherebirds are permanent residents, males may begin singing as early as February (Sprunt andChamberlain 1970) and be well into the song period by March (Stoddard 1978). Singingcontinues into July and often into August or September (Sprunt and Chamberlain 1970,Stoddard 1978); it may even occur in October on the Mississippi coast (Toups and Jack-son 1987).

Large variability in territory size exists throughout the range of the Bachman’s spar-row. The average territory size has been reported as 5.1 ha (12.5 acres) in central Florida(McKitrick 1979), 2.5 ha (6.2 acres) in Arkansas (Haggerty 1986), 0.81 ha (2.1 acres) insoutheastern Texas (Wolf 1977), 0.62 ha (1.53 acres) in Missouri (Hardin et al. 1982), “and 0.6 ha (1.5 acres) in Ohio (Hicks in Brooks 1938). Differences in habitat composi-tion may contribute to variability in territory sizes (McKitrick 1979, Stober 1996).Stober (1996) found that territories in 2-year-old and 4-year-old pine regeneration standswere approximate y 2.2 ha (5.4 acres) and 2.9 ha (7.2 acres), respectively, whereas meanterritory size in mature pine stands was approximately 4.8 ha (11.8 acres). The variationin territory sizes may also result from differences in the survey techniques used for esti-mating territories (Dr. John Dunning, Personal Communication, 1998). Studies basedonly on the distribution of singing males generally yield smaller estimates than those inwhich both males and females are surveyed. From a spotmapping survey of male singingposts, Stober (1996) estimated mean territory size as 0.93 ha (2.3 acres) compared with3.12 ha (7.7 acres) estimated from radiotelemetry. Males use only a small part of theirterritories for singing posts; therefore, surveys based only on singing males is likely to un-derestimate territory size.

Reproduction and development

Dates for nesting vary greatly because of the 10-degree latitude span in breeding dis-tribution. Nesting generally extends from late April through July and peaks during May(Hamel 1992); however, it continues through August in South Carolina (Weston 1968)and Georgia (Stoddard 1978). Nests with eggs have been found from April 25 to July 5in Texas (Oberholser 1974), from May 11 to July 20 in Tennessee (Weston 1968), and


from April 21 to August 31 in Georgia (Burleigh 1958). Nest-building begins about2 months after initiation of male territorial singing (Hardin et al. 1982) and is performedentirely by the female (Weston 1968).

The Bachman’s sparrow is a ground nester that raises one or two broods of young perbreeding season (Johnsgard 1979, Stokes and Stokes 1996). Field observations have sug-gested that three broods may sometimes occur in southern portions of its range (Burleigh1958, Sprunt and Chamberlain 1970, Potter et al. 1980). However, Stober (1996) wasthe first to document a pair attempting a third brood. Clutches consist of 3 to 5 eggs(Hamel 1992, Stokes and Stokes 1996) with an average clutch size of 3.9 (Haggerty1988) to 4.0 (McNair 1987) eggs. Haggerty (1988) found that clutches laid during thefirst half of the breeding season were significantly larger (x = 4.1) than those laid duringthe second half (x= 3.7)(I’ = 0.01).

The eggs are entirely white with mean dimensions of 19.8 by 15.6 mm (0.8 by 0.6 in.)

(Haggerty 1988). One egg is laid each day, and incubation begins when the last egg hasbeen laid. Incubation lasts from 12 to 14 days and is done entirely by the female (Mean-ley 1959, Sprunt and Chamberlain 1970, Haggerty 1988). Both parents contribute sub-stantially to nestling care (Emlen and Oring 1977, Haggerty 1992). When feedingnestlings, adults usually do not fly directly to and from the nest but approach and leave itthrough the surrounding vegetation (Brooks 1938), walking on the ground as far as 15 m(50 ft) (Hardin and Probasco 1983). To distract intruders, the female will feign injury bydragging a wing and fluttering along the ground like a killdeer (Charadrius vociferus)(Gainer 1921, Brooks 1938).

The young fledge in 9 to 11 days (Haggerty 1988, Stokes and Stokes 1996). The

fledgling period, the time between fledging and independence, lasts for approximately25 days (Haggerty 1988). Adults still feed the young after fledging, and young followthe foraging parents on the ground. Males have been known to continue caring for fledg-lings while females begin a second brood. The length of a successful nesting cycle (pe-riod between laying of first egg to fledging last young) is approximately 51 days.

Data on reproductive success of the Bachman’s sparrow are limited. In Arkansas,Haggerty (1988) found that the average number of nests per breeding season was approxi-mately three and the average production of young was approximate y one fledglingper nesting attempt, or three fledglings per pair per breeding season. Nesting success,defined as a nest that fledges at least one young, was not significantly different betweenfirst and second halves of the breeding season, old fields and pine forest tracts, or large-brood and small-brood nests.

Food habits

The Bachman’s sparrow forages entirely on the ground (Allaire and Fisher 1975,Stokes and Stokes 1996) in dense grasses, palmettos, or shrubs (Hamel 1992), and oftennear stumps or fallen logs (Imhof 1976). Sparrows forage independently or in pairs,moving slowly and searching the ground with thorough and deliberate foraging techniques

Species Profile: Bachman’s Sparrow 9

(Allaire and Fisher 1975). In the breeding season, peak feeding occurs during the first5 hr after sunrise and the last 2 hr before sunset. Winter feeding is more irregular andcontinues throughout daylight hours.

Food habits of the Bachman’s sparrow have been difficult to determine because ofthe bird’s secretive nature (LeGrand and Schneider 1992). It is both insectivorous andgranivorous, feeding on insects and on small seeds that have fallen to the ground. Analy-ses of stomach contents from eastern Texas showed that diets during all seasons were pre-dominantly grass seeds, chiefly those of panicums (Panicwn spp.); other grasses thatcontributed small amounts were crabgrass (Digitaria sp.), bristle grass (Setaria sp.), andTriodia sp. (Allaire and Fisher 1975). In central Louisiana, major dietary componentswere panicums, dropseed (Sporoboks spp.), and beetle$ seeds of longleaf and loblolly(P. taeda) pines also contributed to winter diet (Meanley 1959).

In some parts of its range, the Bachman’s sparrow appears to be primarily insectivo-rous (Sprunt and Chamberlain 1970, Oberholser 1974, Imhof 1976). Arthropods, chieflyinsects, were the components of Bachman’s sparrow diets in Alabama studies (Howell1924, Imhof 1976). The stomach contents of 10 birds consisted of 58-percent animalmatter and 42-percent vegetable matter (Howell 1924). Insects comprising the diet werechiefly beetles (Coleoptera), true bugs (Hemiptera), and grasshoppers and crickets(Orthoptera). Other arthropods that contributed to the diet were millipedes and spiders(Imhof 1976). Seed components were from grasses, sedges, wood sorrel (Oxalis spp.),and Indian strawberry (Duchesnea indica).

Predation/parasitism

Nest predators include snakes (Brooks 1938, Weston 1968) and American crows(Corvus brachyrhynchos) (Weston 1968). In southwestern Virginia, 10 of 12 nestsobserved were destroyed by American crows (Weston 1968). In Arkansas, Haggerty(1988) reported that 95 percent of 38 nest failures were caused by predation and 5 percentwere caused by brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) parasitism. Of 35 eggs lost,7 (20 percent) were removed by cowbirds, and 28 (80 percent) were destroyed bydepredation. Of 115 nestlings lost, 78 percent were killed by unknown predators,6 percent were killed by snakes, and 4 percent were killed by an unidentified mammal.

Habitat Requirements

Nesting habitat

Historically, the Bachman’s sparrow was most common in mature longleaf pineforests of the southeastern United States (Stoddard 1978, Haggerty 1986, Dunning 1993).Dunning (1993) referred to this species as “an enigmatic resident of the mature pinewoods and open habitats” of the South. It is currently a year-round resident in pinesavannas of the southeastern coastal plain. These communities are characterized by anopen overstory of longleaf pine and a ground cover of perennial grasses and forbs inter-spersed with deciduous oaks (Quercus spp.) (Platt et al. 1988, Myers 1990).


Vegetation is predominantly old-growth pines (>80 years) (Ehrlich et al. 1992) withsmall hardwood stands bordering drainage systems (Meanley 1959). Ground cover isusually dominated by grasses such as bluestems (Andropogon spp.) and wiregrass (Aris-tida wicla) (Dunning 1993). Typical forbs associated with pine savannas are goldenrods

(SoMago spp.), asters (?Lster spp.), thoroughwotis (Eupa~orhm spp.), and blazing stars(Liatris spp.) (Mitchell 1980). Scattered shrub species include wax myrtle (Myrica cerif-era), sumacs (Rhus spp.), post oak (Q. stellata), blackjack oak (Q. nzarilandica), andblack gum (Nys.sa sylvatica) (Meanley 1959).

In eastern Texas, the dominant habitat type in which Bachman’s sparrows nest ismixed loblolly and shortleaf (P. echinata) pine forest (Allaire and Fisher 1975). In thenorth-central States, sparrows breed in hilly areas with dense herbaceous vegetation andscattered trees; these areas are usually located adjacent to forests in the northern part ofthe range and within forests in the southern part of the range (Handset al. 1989). Nest-ing also occurs in the Missouri glades, which are natural openings overlying stony, shal-low limestone soils in the oak-hickory forests of south-central Missouri (Probasco 1978).Little bluestem (A. scoparius) commonly dominates the glades, but woody species suchas smoke tree (Cotinus obovatus) and eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) can be-come important components (Evans and Kirkman 1981). Predominant grasses in areaspreferred by the Bachman’s sparrow are little bluestem, big bluestem (A. gerardi), sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula), switch grass (Panicum virgatum), and baldgrasses(Sporobulus spp.). Forb species include prairie clovers (Petalostemum spp.), indigo (In-digofera spp.), black-eyed susan (Rudbeckia hirta), and coneflowers (Rudbeckia spp.).Hardin et al. (1982) found that little bluestem comprised 40 to 60 percent of glade cover;forbs averaged 20 percent cover; and shrubs and trees averaged 4 percent or less cover.

Bachman’s sparrows occur in other open habitats with adequate ground cover, suchas young pine woodlands, old fields, and early successional clearcuts (Evans and Kirk-man 1981, Hardin and Probasco 1983, Dunning and Watts 1990, Gobris 1992, Dunninget al. 1995). Typical vegetation is similar to the herbaceous layer of open pine forests,especially longleaf pine savannas (Ehrlich et al. 1992). Principal plant species arebluestems, goldenrods, asters, fleabanes (Erigeron spp.), and other composites, alongwith some woody species that include greenbriers (Smilax spp.), blackberry (Rubus spp.),sumacs, crabapple (Malus augustifolia), hawthome (Crataegus spp.), and flowering dog-

wood (Cornus j70rida) (Brooks 1938, Evans and Kirkman 1981). Shrubs and small treescharacteristic of a site may also be present, such as oaks, hickories, pines, black cherry(Prunus serotina), and sassafras (Sassafras albidum) (Evans and Kirkman 1981).

Other typical nesting sites in open habitats include abandoned pastures, roadcuts,

utility rows, and clearcuts, which provide suitable habitat for 1 to 7 years after replanting

(Dunning and Watts 1990). Bachman’s sparrows use abandoned farmlands left unculti-

vated for several years, particularly in the Piedmont (Dorsey 1976). They nest in grassy

patches where understory shrub intrusion is limited by poor soils, fire, or other distur-

bance, such as the dry grassy edges of seasonal ponds (McK.itrick 1979) and borders of

cultivated fields (Oberholser 1974). In Georgia and Texas, Bachman’s sparrows have


adapted to tung (Aleurites fordi) groves (Weston 1968, Oberholser 1974) that provideleguminous cover crops with abundant insect prey (Stoddard 1978).

The nest site is almost always on the ground, usually at the base of an overhanginggrass clump, small shrub, or pine seedling (Dunning 1993). Nests are particularly associ-ated with clumps of little bluestem (Hardin et al. 1982) or wiregrass (Hardin et al. 1982,Meanley 1988) and are frequently located under palmetto (Serenoa spp.) in coastal areas(Weston 1968, Imhof 1976). The female builds the nest, with the male following closelyafter her during nest construction (Dunning 1993). She places the nest in a small depres-sion after clearing away leaf litter and digging a scrape at the nest site (Haggerty 1986).Size of nest scrapes in Arkansas averaged 1 cm (0.4 in.) in depth at the center, 10.4 cm(4.1 in.) in length, and 9.1 cm (3.6 in.) in width.

The nest is made of dry grasses, forbs, and rootlets and lined with fine grasses andhorse hair (Dunning 1993); panicums are frequently used as the primary grasses (Hoyt1945, Nicholson 1976, Meanley 1989). One nest from North Carolina was composed of1,035 pieces of plant material, which was mostly panicum grasses (Meardey 1989). Thenest may be an open, cup-shaped structure (Tyler and Lyle 1934, Brooks 1938, Stoddard1978, Haggerty 1986). However, the cup of most nests is covered with a domed roofthat is usually woven into overhanging vegetation (Gainer 1921, Laskey 1942, Burleigh1958, Sprunt and Chamberlain 1970, Imhof 1976, Nicholson 1976, Stoddard 1978,Potter et al. 1980, Hardin et al. 1982, Haggerty 1986, Meanley 1988). In Arkansas,66 of 71 nests had domes or partial domes, while only 5 nests were open cups (Haggerty1986). Mean dimensions of Arkansas nests were 15.0 cm (6.0 in.) in outside length,12.8 cm (5.0 in.) in outside width, and 10.1 cm (4.0 in.) in height; mean weight was13.7 g (0.5 Oz).

The nest opening is usually oriented away from direct sun. Haggerty (1986) foundthe mean direction of orientation to be NNE in Arkansas. Nests in Texas have been re-ported to face west (Johnsgard 1979), and a nest found in Croatan National Forest, NorthCarolina, was facing east (Meanley 1988). There is little ground vegetation 30 to 40 cm(12 to 16 in.) in front of the nest opening (Wolf 1977, Haggerty 1986), and a hidden pas-sageway, or tunnel, often extends outward from the nest (Sprunt and Chamberlain 1970,Potter et al. 1980). A new nest is built for each subsequent nesting attempt (Dunning1993).

Wintering habitat

Migratory and resident Bachman’s sparrows winter primarily in longleaf pine forestsof the South (LeGrand and Schneider 1992). Wintering habitat of the Bachman’s sparrow issimilar to its breeding habitat and composed mostly of thick grassy cover. The habitat isusually open pinewoods or bluestem fields (Weston 1968, Sprunt and Chamberlain1970). However, wintering birds have been found in riparian habitat and sometimesalong saltwater shores of coastal woodlands (Weston 1968). Winter habitat criteria havenot been well defined because Bachman’s sparrows are diftlcult to detect unless malesare singing (Dunning 1993).


Habitat Assessment

Existing or potential nesting areas on an installation should be assessed to determinehabitat suitability for the Bachman’s sparrow. Characteristics of vegetation structure tobe measured include percent total cover, density and height of herbaceous vegetation andshrubs, and plant species composition. In wooded areas, forest inventory methods shouldbe applied to determine characteristics such as tree density, height, and basal area, all ofwhich affect the quality and quantity of savanna grasses and shrubs. Potential for songperches can be ascertained by determining the availability of dead lower branches orstubs of living pine trees up to 6 m (20 ft) above the ground. Sampling should be con-ducted in spring when birds would be using nesting habitat.

Point sampling along line transects is an effective method for sampling herbaceousvegetation. Herkert (1994) used it to sample midwestem grassland vegetation at 40 ran-domly located sites within each bird census transect. He passed a 0.6-cm- (0.25 -in.-)diam metal rod vertically through the vegetation and counted the number of contacts bydifferent vegetation types, including dead plant material, in successive 25-cm (lO-in.) in-tervals of height. Other variations of point sampling include the technique described byZimmerman (1988) for assessing vegetation in the Henslow’s sparrow habitat, which issimilar to that of Bachman’s sparrows.

Hardin et al. (1982) used plot sampling along transects to survey vegetation whereBachman’s sparrows nested in limestone glades of Missouri. Grasses, forbs, and woodyplants less than 1 m (3.3 ft) tall were sampled within 30-by 65-cm (12-by 26-in.) quad-rats spaced 5 m (16 ft) along transects that crossed the territory at 10-m (33-ft) intervals.Herbaceous cover was estimated for each quadrat and recorded by the Daubenmire(1959) ranking method. Territories were marked with a 20-by 20-m (65.6-by 65.6-ft)grid to sample shrubs, defined as woody species taller than 1 m (3.3 ft) and less than8-cm (3-in.) diam at breast height (dbh). At each intersection point, percent shrub coverwas estimated in a circle 4 m (13 ft) in diameter. Trees, woody plants greater than 8-cm(3-in.) dbh, were measured for height, crown width, and dbh by using a randomly located10- by 10-m (33-by 33-ft) plot on each territory.

In South Carolina pine stands and clearcuts, Duming and Watts (1990) quantifiedvegetation characteristics of Bachman’s sparrow habitat by measuring vegetation vol-umes at 200 points within each plot of 10 to 20 ha (25 to 50 acres). Vegetation was meas-ured in the first 4-m (13-ft) layers above ground by using the pole method described byMills et al. (1989). All vegetation was recorded within a series of O.1-m- (0.3 -ft-) radiuscylindrical volumes centered around a pole marked in 0.1- and 1.O-m (0.3- and 3-ft) sec-tions. At each of 200 points was recorded the number of O.1-m (0.3-ft) volumes that con-tained vegetation in each l-m (3-ft) layer above ground, and the plant was identified ineach case. The species of all tree saplings and shrubs that entered the sample space wererecorded. All other plants were classified as ferns, grasses, forbs, vines, or dead vegeta-tion. Data were analyzed using Principle Components Analysis, which is described morefully in Dunning and Watts (1990).


Canopy cover can be estimated with an ocular tube in mature stands or those provid-ing considerable canopy. Engstrom et al. (1984) used ocular-tube sightings to determinecanopy cover of hardwood saplings approximately 5 m (16 ft) tall and pines about 30 m(100 ft) tall.

Although specific parameters of wintering habitat have not been described for theBachman’s sparrow, longleaf pine savannas and other known nesting areas on southeast-ern military installations should be surveyed to determine their possible use as winterhabitat. Vegetation attributes can be measured by applying the same techniques givenabove for sampling nesting habitat. Sampling should be done in midwinter when spar-rows would most likely be using the habitat.

Inventory and Monitoring

Ideally, existing and potential habitat for the Bachman’s sparrow should be censusedevery year. At least one breeding census should be conducted to collect baseline informa-tion, and known populations should be monitored regularly for breeding activity in sub-sequent years. The best time to census Bachman’s sparrows is at the height of thebreeding season in May and/or June (Probasco 1978, Duming and Watts 1990). Al-though males sing throughout the day (Stoddard 1978), most censuses are conductedbetween sunrise and 10:00 a.m. (I%obasco 1978, Dunning and Watts 1990). Collectionof nest success data such as clutch size, number of young produced, and causes of nestfailure will increase the baseline data for this species.

Methods used to inventory the Bachman’s sparrow include territory mapping (Hardin1977, Hardin et al. 1982) and time-area counts (Probasco 1978; Dunning and Watts 1990,1991). In the Missouri glades, Probasco (1978) established four O.10-ha (0.25-acre) plots ineach cover type and collected data on bird activity and frequency during 30-min observa-tion periods divided into 5-rein intervals. In another study, singing males were locatedin glades by observers listening for birds or playing a recording of the male Bachman’ssparrow song and listening for a response (Hardin et al. 1982). Activities and locationsof territorial males were recorded at 5-rein intervals over a 3-hr period. After at least10 locations were recorded for each male, an outline of the territory was drawn and areawas calculated.

Dunning and Watts (1990, 1991) and Dunning et al. (1995) censused Bachman’s spar-rows in clearcuts and various-aged stands in Georgia and South Carolina with slightmodifications to the sampling technique each season. The first counts were conducted ateach of six marked reference points within plots of 10 to 20 ha (25 to 50 acres) (Dunningand Watts 1990). All birds seen or heard during 3-rein count intervals were recorded.After the initial count, taped Bachman’s sparrow songs were played for 1.5-rein intervals,and all responses were recorded in the following 1.5 min. During the next breeding sea-son, the technique was modified so that each observer spent 20 min in each stand, play-ing taped songs every 1 to 2 min and listening for responses (Dunning and Watts 1991).


Allplots were surveyed twice ineachofthese studies. Taped recordings were helpful incounting Bachman’s sparrows, as territorial males respond by flying to an exposed perchand matching songs with the recording (Dunning et al. 1995).

This census technique was further modified so that a single observer could survey theclearcuts by walking a line transect on a path that carried the observer within 30 m (100 ft) ofall points in each stand (Dunning et al. 1995). Singing males are easily detectable within30 m, so the entire area of each stand was surveyed. The observer alternated playingtape-recorded songs and listening for male responses. All sparrow observations (includingnonsinging females and fledglings) were recorded on a map of the study sites, and densitydata were calculated as the average number of singing males per hectare. Following theinitial procedure described in the paragraph above, observers conducted point countsfrom six locations within each study plot; sparrow locations were mapped as well asrecorded.

Impacts and Causes of Decline

Although subject to population fluctuations over time and space, the Bachman’ssparrow experienced the greatest decline from the 1930s to the 1960s (Duming 1993).However, decline had become more evident by the 1970s (LeGrand and Schneider 1992),and this species has been on the National Audubon Society’s Blue List since 1972 (Tate1986). Reasons for the sparrow’s decline are not obvious, but most authors attribute itto habitat loss resulting from changes in timber management and agricultural land-usepractices (Brooks 1938, Oberholser 1974, Dorsey 1976, Haggerty 1986, Dunning andWatts 1990, Ehrlich et al. 1992, LeGrand and Schneider 1992, Dunning 1993).

Habitat loss

The pronounced decline following northward expansion of the Bachman’s sparrow

during the early part of the century was most likely a response to successional changes on

abandoned farmland (Haggerty 1986). By the 1980s, there was little abandoned farm-

land compared with the acreage left idle in the early decades of the century (Odum

1987). Such farmland eventually converts to woodland and thus becomes unsuitable for

Bachman’s sparrows.

Regional populations declined in the South as mature forest stands were harvested(Oberholser 1974, Hunter 1990, Ehrlich et al. 1992, Dunning 1993). Commercial timbermanagement has resulted in the conversion of natural stands of longleaf and loblollypines with savanna understory to densely stocked monoculture of loblolly and shortleafpine (Hunter 1990). Young pine plantations provide suitable habitat for Bachman’ssparrows for a few years during early successional stages, but become unsuitable within4 to 7 years after replanting (Dunning 1993). The Bachman’s sparrow can exist overlong periods of time in naturally occurring, open longleaf pine savannas that are main-tained by frequent fire (LeGrand and Schneider 1992). However, commercial timber isgenerally harvested under a 30-to 40-year rotation so that few areas become old enough


to consistent y support ground cover and understory conditions suitable for Bachman’ssparrow habitat (Ehrlich et al. 1992, Dunning 1993).

Fire exclusion has contributed significantly to habitat loss for the Bachman’s sparrow(Oberholser 1974, Hunter 1990, LeGrand and Schneider 1992). Historically, wildfirescould burn for days and cover thousands of acres of land to keep shrub and understorylayers under control, thus promoting development of a dense grass and forb stage in old-growth forests (LeGrand and Schneider 1992). However, the spread of human populationsinto more wooded areas has dictated the need for fire-suppression policies, and manage-ment of forests by prescribed burning has become increasingly more difficult. In theabsence of natural fire or active management, grassy habitats are rapidly supplanted byhardwood brush and rendered unsuitable for Bachman’s sparrows (Dunning and Watts1990). During a 15-year study in northwest Florida, avian species adapted to open habi-tats disappeared within 5 years after fire exclusion (Engstrom et al. 1984). Suppression ofnatural fire is also causing loss of suitable habitat in the western part of the Bachman’ssparrow range, where sparrows inhabit open stands of hardwoods, such as oak savanna(LeGrand and Schneider 1992). Although cutting and thinning forests can create suitablehabitat, openings must be maintained by burning to prevent woody vegetation from domi-nating the understory (Hardin 1977, Haggerty 1986).

Habitat fragmentation may have contributed to the decline of the Bachrnan’s sparrow.Research by Duming et al. (1995) suggested that landscape distributions of suitablehabitat may affect regional populations. Field surveys conducted in regions where suit-able habitat patches were isolated from potential sources of dispersing birds showed thatisolated patches were less likely to be colonized than nonisolated patches. Computersimulation models suggested that the Bachrnan’s sparrow may become locally extinct inlandscapes where suitable habitat consists only of isolated patches of early successionalvegetation (l%lliam et al. 1992).

Other impacts

Although interspecific competition, cowbird parasitism, predation, and diseases mayinfluence local populations of Bachman’s sparrows, available data do not support any ofthese factors as significant contributors to the overall decline of this species. The fieldsparrow has a niche similar to that of the Bachman’s sparrow (I-h-din et al. 1982, Haggerty1986); however, the latter is a ground feeder, whereas the field sparrow usually feeds inshrubs and saplings and less often on the ground (Allaire and Fisher 1975). Cowbirdsparasitize Bachman’s sparrow nests but are usually not significant in nest failure (Mengel1965, Haggerty 1988). In Arkansas, Haggerty (1986, 1988) found that predation caused55 to 95 percent of nest losses, whereas cowbird parasitism accounted for only 5 percent.Although ectoparasites have been reported on Bachman’s sparrows (Peters 1936), itseems unlikely that parasites have contributed to their decline.

Military training

Training activities on military installations can impact the habitat of Bachman’ssparrows (Trame 1997). Mechanized training can alter natural plant communities


through impacts resulting in soil erosion, and intensive use of tactical land vehicles (bothtracked and wheeled) can cause extensive soil disturbance. These training activities canalso disrupt nesting by the physical destruction of nests. Bivouacs, which involve acombination of vehicle and nonmechanized trampling, represent a serious source of soilcompaction and related impacts. Upland soils with high sand content will not suffer agreat deal of compaction, and frequently used bivouac sites may retain ground cover andpine regeneration if soils are resistant to compaction. However, sustained high levels oftrampling can ultimately eliminate vegetation and potential nesting habitat.

Military training can impact native communities by fragmenting the fuel sourcesneeded to carry fire over large areas (Trame 1997). Native ground covers, especiallygrasses, are essential fuel sources that allow large areas to bum. As unburned areasundergo a change in plant succession, sites become increasingly shaded through time,and the natural community is ultimately lost. However, training activities may result inpotentially beneficial effects to natural habitats. The most beneficial effect is the reintro-duction of fire resulting from activities such as live arms firing and use of incendiarydevices. Frequency of ignition on military installations, especially in high hazard impactareas, often produces a fire regime over large areas at a frequency that resembles preset-tlement natural fire return intervals. This encourages a mosaic burn pattern and enhancesconditions for fire-adapted species, especially those associated with longleaf pine savan-nas and other open habitats (Gulf Engineers and Consultants, Inc., and Gee-Marine 1994,LeBlond et al. 1994).

Management and Protection

Recovery

There is no recovery plan for the Bachman’s sparrow because it is not Federallylisted, but application of current knowledge can provide protection for population reestab-lishment. Recovery of this species requires the maintenance of numerous stable and pro-tected populations where suitable habitat remains within its historical range. Landprotection through acquisition, easement, and registry programs are means of ensuringthat large tracts of suitable habitats are adequately preserved for Bachman’s sparrows,but these are not usually viable alternatives for military installations. Therefore, the fo-cus for restoring Bachman’s sparrow populations must be on management of large areasof natural communities (pine savannas, prairies, limestone glades, mature hardwood for-ests) where existing management practices can be modified to accommodate nesting habi-tat needs (LeGrand and Schneider 1992). Emphasis should be placed on avoiding habitatfragmentation during management applications, since isolated habitat patches do not pro-vide an adequate resource base for population maintenance (Pulliam et al. 1992, Duminget al. 1995). Restoration of the species in the Northeast may require reintroduction ofsparrows to suitable habitat. However, the Bachman’s sparrow should be able to recoverin the central and southern portions of its range if existing and restored breeding habitatsare properly managed.


Management procedures

Management of public lands offers the best opportunity to protect and restore thelongleaf pine ecosystem, which is the Bachman’s sparrow’s primary habitat. On nationalforests and military installations, efforts are often driven by management for the endan-gered red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoide.s borealis), a species that is also endemic to the

longleafpine forests of thesoutheastem United States. Thered-cockaded woodpecker

(RCW) uses mature forests with an open midstory (Liu et al. 1995), and RCW manage-

ment encourages development of old-growth forests (Ehrlich et al. 1992). Duming and

Watts (1990) suggested that management practices producing suitable habitat for the

RCW would probably provide habitat for Bachman’s sparrows. Brennan et al. (1995)

and Wilson et al. (1995) found that Bachman’s sparrows were more abundant in areas

managed for RCWS than in areas not managed for them, and the majority of Bachman’s

sparrows found during surveys at Camp Lejeune, NC, were within 100 m (328 fi) of an

RCW colony (LeBlond et al. 1994). Therefore, rehabilitation and restoration of the long-

leaf pine ecosystem as part of RCW management on military installations will likely

benefit Bachman’s sparrows.

Recommendations for managing red-cockaded habitat are found in “EnvironmentalAssessment of Army-Wide Management Guidelines for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker”(U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratories (USACERL) 1994).Effective management techniques for both RCWS and Bachman’s sparrows are those thatopen longleaf pine midstory, which will aid in establishing and maintaining herbaceousvegetation for food and foraging cover. These techniques include (a) prescribed burning,(b) pine thinning and hardwood control, (c) brush clearing and fuel removal within bufferareas surrounding cavity trees, (d) longleaf pine regeneration, and (e) erosion control.

Prescribed burning. Regular prescribed fire, the primary tool for managing RCWhabitat, is the key to developing and maintaining the dense herbaceous understory pre-ferred by Bachman’s sparrows (Plentovich et al. 1998). Longleaf pines resist fire (Chap-man 1932, Myers 1990), and regular burning prevents hardwoods from outcompetingboth shade-intolerant pines and the diverse understory of forbs and grasses (Lewis andHarshbarger 1976). Platt et al. (1988) maintained that longleaf pine is a keystone speciesand that influencing a fire regime conducive to its reproduction also influences composi-tion and abundance of other species within the habitat.

Because fire historically occurred in the southeastern pine forests at intervals of ap-proximately 3 to 5 years (Chapman 1932, Krusac et al. 1995), bum management is usuallyconducted on a 3- to 5-year rotation (Dunning and Watts 1990). A 3-year bum scheduleis preferable to longer rotations because sparrow densities decrease 3 years after burning(Johnson and Landers 1982, Dunning and Watts 1990, Gobris 1992). Engstrom et al. (1984)found that Bachman’s sparrows had disappeared from Florida loblolly and slash pineforests within 5 years of fire exclusion. Before the massive timber destruction resultingfrom Hurricane Hugo, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service burned allforest compartments on a 3- to 5-year rotation at the Francis Marion National Forest,


South Carolina, where much of the forest was managed for RCW colonies (Dunning andWatts 1990).

It is recommended that burning be conducted during the growing season to kill younghardwoods (Glitzenstein et al. 1995), increase growth of grass-stage longleaf pines in theunderstory (Robbins and Myers 1992), and stimulate development of a dense cover ofherbaceous vegetation (Platt et al. 1991, Waldrop et al. 1992). Natural fire breaks, suchas topographic features and wetland boundaries, should be used for controlling fire, sincenatural breaks more close] y mimic natural ecosystem processes than do artificial fire con-trols (USACERL 1994). Use of heavy equipment to construct berms or fire lanes shouldbe minimized to avoid negative impacts to ground-layer vegetation and soil stability.

Plentovich et al. (1998) suggested that any treatment for midstory control should in-clude frequent burning. The more intensive treatments are at risk of being lost if the areais not burned frequently enough to prevent reestablishment of hardwoods (l%cano 1995).In forests where fire has been suppressed for many years, prescribed bums of low inten-sity may not kill larger hardwoods (Waldrop et al. 1992), and a dense midstory may re-duce herbaceous ground cover so much that fire intensity will not be great enough to killoaks (Platt et al. 1991). In this case, large-scale midstory removal is necessary before firebecomes an effective management tool (Krusac et al. 1995).

Pine thinning and hardwood control. It maybe possible to manage habitat for theBachman’s sparrow by thinning pine habitats and controlling hardwoods by other meansthan burning. These methods can have the same effect as burning by opening the forestto create an abundance and variety of plants, especially those associated with early stagesof plant succession. Dunning and Watts (1990) found that an infrequent] y burned maturepine stand was occupied by Bachman’s sparrows when an open understory was main-tained by cutting saplings and girdling older deciduous trees. Selective cutting of over-crowded stands produces an open parklike aspect approximating optimum habitat for theBachman’s sparrow (Meanley 1959). Thinning pine plantations to basal areas found inmature stands will allow Bachman’s sparrows to use 45- to 60-year-old stands (Haggerty1986). Liu et al. (1995) suggested the incorporation of both thinning and prescribed bur-ninginto forest management of young pine stands to create suitable habitat for Bachman’ssparrows.

Clearcuts maybe used on some sites to provide habitat for Bachman’s sparrows forseveral years. LeGrand and Schneider (1992) recommended that clearcuts be at least 75 ha(185 acres) in size and preferably square, rectangular, or circular in shape, as sparrowsseldom use narrow clearings, such as power lines. However, Dunning and Watts (1990)found that Bachman’s sparrows at the Savannah River Site, South Carolina, most com-monly used clearcuts of 10 to 20 ha (25 to 50 acres) and also occupied power line rights-of-way (Dr. John B. Dunning, Personal Communication, 1998). A burned clearcut canremain suitable for Bachman’s sparrows for 5 to 10 years, but 1 to 2 years may be re-quired for cover reestablishment after clearing (with or without fire) (LeGrand andSchneider 1992). In about 10 years, saplings become too dense for clearcuts to be usedby sparrows (Dunning and Watts 1990).


Use of hardwood and pine thinning guidelines for RCW habitat (USACERL 1994)should benefit Bachman’s sparrows by promoting the maintenance of open, parklikestands of mature pine-oak forest. other strategies for hardwood control include the

manual removal of hardwoods from around cavity trees, manual removal of hardwoodsover extensive areas, and herbicide applications to hardwoods (Jackson 1986, Krusac etal. 1995). Chemical and mechanical methods of hardwood control should employ bestmanagement practices to avoid soil disturbance, destruction of ground-layer vegetation,and nontarget effects of herbicides (USACERL 1994). Hardwood control should beavoided during nesting periods.

Longleaf pine regeneration. Reestablishment of longleaf pine and regeneration ofexisting pine stands potential y increase available habitats for Bachman’s sparrows.Clear or partial cutting of pine forests, foilowed by burning and direct seeding or planting,provides optimum habitat for these sparrows (Meanley 1959, Haggerty 1986). Nestinghabitat can be maintained for longer use if pines are planted less densely (Haggerty1986). Hunter (1990) recommended that trees be spaced at least 6 to 7 m (20 to 25 ft)apart. Cleared areas planted with longleaf pine are suitable to the Bachman’s sparrow forlonger periods of time than those planted with loblolly pine.

Site preparation techniques affect the initial suitability of habitat for Bachman’ssparrows (Dunning 1993). Techniques that do not destroy all ground vegetation, suchas burning prior to replanting, generally allow quick colonization of a site, whereastechniques that destroy virtually all ground vegetation (e.g., disking, wind-rowing, androller-chopping) result in delayed colonization by sparrows until the vegetation has recov-ered (Dunning and Watts 1990). A technique called drumchopping is used by forestersto reduce the amount of aboveground vegetation and debris before planting. Dunningand Watts (1990) found that drumchopping resulted in low, dense shrubs, whereas clear-cuts that were not drumchopped had tall shrubs and standing dead timber that createdexposed song perches. Areas cleared by burning appear to be preferred by sparrows overareas cleared by mechanical means (Hunter 1990).

Erosion control. Contented efforts to reduce and prevent soil erosion within RCWHabitat Management UNts (HMUS) would have a beneficial effect on Bachman’s sparrowhabitats by maintaining the integrity of the herbaceous layer of vegetation (USACERL1994). Use of native vegetation should be used wherever possible, and nonnative speciesshould be avoided. Mechanical means of erosion control should maintain the naturalcontours of the surrounding topography to ensure the integrity of natural hydrologicprocesses.

Training restrictions. Restrictions on training activities within RCW HMUS shouldbenefit the Bachman’s sparrow in areas where they minimize disturbance to vegetationand soils (USACERL 1994). Vehicular traffic on roadways should be monitored to reducesoil erosion, and off-road traffic should be prohibited because it is highly deleterious toground cover, soil structure, and hydrologic patterns. If off-road traffic is unavoidable, itshould be prohibited from areas supporting known breeding populations of Bachman’ssparrows.


Management practices involving extractive land uses should be applied with caution.For example, pine straw raking has been shown to destroy ground-layer vegetation andlongleaf pine seedlings and to cause or exacerbate erosion problems (USACERL 1994).Over a long period of time, removal of pine straw fuels may also alter fire regimes,which in turn would have negative impacts on the Bachman’s sparrow. Timber harvestthat shifts forest stands toward longer rotations and replaces offsite pines and hardwoodswith longleaf pine should restore natural fire, hydrologic, and dynamics in plant commu-nities. Forest management should minimize adverse impacts to wiregrass and other her-baceous ground-layer species. No extractive land uses should be permitted during thebreeding season.

Managers should be aware that management practices for RCWS may not alwaysbenefit Bachman’s sparrows because habitat requirements of the two species are not iden-tical (Liu et al. 1995). Studies at Eglin Air Force Base, FL (Plentovich et al. 1998)showed that areas suitable for RCWS were not always suitable for Bachman’s sparrows.RCWS appear more tolerant of a hardwood midstory and do not require a dense groundcover of grasses and forbs. Manual removal of midstory hardwoods from around cavitytrees does not always produce sufficient open areas for Bachman’s sparrows. Large-scale midstory removal creates an open midstory and prevents hardwoods from encroach-ing on RCW cavities but does not have the same effects on understory as fire (Platt et al.1988). Prescribed burning must also be used to promote development of appropriateground cover for Bachman’s sparrows (Mentovich et al. 1998).

Managers should not depend only on RCW management to provide suitable habitat forBachman’s sparrows. Old fields, clearcuts, and other open areas with dense herbaceouscover, as well as mature forests, should be managed for this species. Simulation modelsdeveloped by Liu et al. (1995) indicated that sole dependence on RCW-managementstrategies may cause local Bachman’s sparrow populations to decrease substantial y overthe short term (10 years). However, simulation results were specific to that particularlandscape, which was dominated by middle-aged forest (30 to 40 years). Different popu-lation trajectories would be expected in landscapes with other habitat distributions.

Research Needs

Research needs for the Bachman’s sparrow include the following: (a) determinationof mortality and reproductive success rates; (b) determination of winter habitat use and re-quirements; (c) further studies on effects of habitat fragmentation on Bachman’s sparrowpopulations; (d) determination of the effects of prescribed burning regimes on develop-ment of suitable habitat for Bachman’s sparrows; (e) evaluation of the appropriate size,shape, and juxtaposition of restored pine stands compared with presettlement fire-inducedlandscape mosaic (Wilson et al. 1995); and (f) further studies on the compatibility ofmanagement strategies for both the RCW and Bachman’s sparrow.


Literature Cited

Alabama Natural Heritage Program. 1994. Natural Heritage Inventory of Fort McClellan,Pelham Range: Federal endangered, threatened, candidate species and State-listedspecies. Alabama Natural Heritage Program, Alabama Department of Conservationand Natural Resources, State Lands Division, Montgomery, AL.

Allaire, P. N., and C. D. Fisher. 1975. Feeding ecology of three resident sympatric

sparrows in eastern Texas. Auk 92:260-269.

American Ornithologists’ Union. 1983. Checklist of North American birds. Sixth edition.Allen Press, Inc., Lawrence, Kansas. 877 pp.

Brennan, L. A., J. L. Cooper, K. E. Lucas, B. D. Leopold, and G. A. Hurst. 1995. As-sessing the influence of red-cockaded woodpecker colony site management on non-target forest vertebrates in loblolly pine forests of Mississippi: Study design andpreliminary results. Pages 309-319 In D. L. Kulhavy, R. G. Hooper, and R. Costa,ed. Red-cockaded woodpecker: Recovery, ecology and management. Center forApplied Studies in Forestry, College of Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State University,Nacogdoches, TX. 551 pp.

Brooks, M. 1938. Bachrnan’s sparrow in the north-central portion of its range. WilsonBulletin 50:86-109.

Burleigh, T. D. 1958. Georgia birds. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. 746 pp.

Chapman, H. H. 1932. Is the longleaf type a climax? Ecology 13:328-334.

Daubenmire, R. 1959. A canopy-coverage method of vegetation analysis. NorthwestScientist 33:43-64.

Dorsey, G. A. 1976. Bachman’s sparrow: Songs and behavior. The Oriole 41:52-56.

Drilling, N. E. 1985. Aimophi/a aestivalis. Element Stewardship Abstract. The NatureConservancy, Midwest Regional Office, Minneapolis, MN.

Dunning, J. B., Jr. 1993. Bachman’s sparrow. Pages 1-16 In A. Poole, P. Stettenheim,and F. Gill, ed. The Birds of North America, No. 38. Academy of Natural Sciences,Philadelphia, and the American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, DC.

Dunning, J. B., Jr., R. Borgella, Jr., K. Clements, and G. K. Meffe. 1995. Patch isolation,corridor effects, and colonization by a resident sparrow in a managed pine woodland.Conservation Biology 9:542-550.

Dunning, J. B., Jr., and B. D. Watts. 1990. Regional differences in habitat occupancy byBachman’s sparrow. Auk 107:463-472.


Dunning, J. B., Jr., and B. D. Watts. 1991. Habitat occupancy by Bachman’s sparrow inthe Francis Marion National Forest before and after Hurricane Hugo. Auk 108:723-725.

Ehrlich, P. R., D. S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1992. Birds in jeopardy: The imperiled andextinct birds of the United States and Canada, including Hawaii and Puerto Rico.Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. 259 pp.

Eifrig, G. 1915. Bachman’s sparrow near Chicago, Illinois. Auk 32:496-497.

Emlen, S. T., and L. W. Oring. 1977. Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution ofmating systems. Science 197:215-223.

Engstrom, R. T., R. L. Crawford, and W. W. Baker. 1984. Breeding bird populations inrelation to changing fire exclusion: A 15-year study. Wilson Bulletin 96:437-450.

Escano, R. E. F. 1995. Red-cockaded woodpecker extinction or recovery: Summary ofstatus and management on our National Forests. Pages 28-35 In D. L. Kulhavy, R.G. Hooper, and R. Costa, ed. Red-cockaded woodpecker: Recovery, ecology andmanagement. Center for Applied Studies in Forestry, College of Forestry, Stephen F.Austin State University, Nacogdoches, TX. 551 pp.

Evans, K. E., and R. A. Kirkman. 1981. Guide to bird habitats of the Ozark Plateau.USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report NC-68. 79 pp.

Gainer, A. F. 1921. Nesting of Bachrnan’s sparrow. Wilson Bulletin 33:3-4.

Glitzenstein, J. S., W. J. Platt, and D. R. Streng. 1995. Effects of fire regime and habitat

on tree dynamics in north Florida longleaf pine savannas. Ecological Monographs

65:441-476.

Gobris, N. M. 1992. Habitat occupancy during the breeding season by Bachman’s spar-row at Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge in central Georgia. M.S. thesis, Univer-sity of Georgia, Athens.

Gulf Engineers and Consultants, Inc., and Gee-Marine, Inc. 1994. Rare, threatened, and

endangered species survey and their habitat at Fort Beming, Georgia. Final report,

Contract No. DACW21-89-0016. Baton Rouge, LA.

Haggerty, T. M. 1986. Reproductive ecology of Bachman’s sparrow (Aimophila aesti-valis) in central Arkansas. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.

Haggerty, T. M. 1988. Aspects of the breeding biology and productivity of Bachman’ssparrow in central Arkansas. Wilson Bulletin 100:247-255.


Haggerty, T. M. 1992. Effects of nestling age and brood size on nestling care in theBachman’s sparrow (Aimophila ae,stivalis). American Midland Naturalist 128:115-125.

Hamel, P. B. 1992. The land manager’s guide to the birds of the South. The NatureConservancy, Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.

Hands, H. M., R. D. Drobney, and M. R. Ryan. 1989. Status of the Bachman’s sparrowin the northcentral United States. Missouri Cooperative Fish and Wildlife ResearchUnit report. 11 pp.

Hardin, K. I. 1977. Bachman’s sparrow on southern Missouri glades. M.S. thesis, Uni-versity of Missouri, Columbia. 111 pp.

Hardin, K. I., T. S. Baskett, and K. E. Evans. 1982. Habitat of Bachman’s sparrowsbreeding on Missouri glades. Wilson Bulletin 94:208-212.

Hardin, K. I., and G. E. Probasco. 1983. The habitat characteristics and life require-ments of Bachman’s sparrow. Birding 15:189-197.

Hart, B. L., and G. D. Lester. 1993. Natural communities and sensitive species assess-ment on Fort Polk Military Reservation, Louisiana. Final report submitted to Depart-ment of the Army Corps of Engineers, Memphis, TN, by The Nature Conservancy,Arlington, VA.

Herkert, J. R. 1994. The effects of habitat fragmentation on midwestem grassland birdcommunities. Ecological Applications 4:461-171.

Howell, A. H. 1924. Birds of Alabama. Department of Game and Fish of Alabama andU.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Biological Survey, Montgomery. 384 pp.

Hoyt, J. S. Y. 1945. Nesting of Bachman’s sparrow near Memphis. Migrant 16:1-2.

Hunter, W. C. 1990. Handbook for nongame bird management and monitoring in the

Southeast Region. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta, GA.

Imhof, T. A. 1976. Alabama Birds. Second edition. University Alabama, Tuscaloosa.445 pp.

Jackson, J. A. 1985. The nesting 1985 season. American Birds 39:926.

Jackson, J. A. 1986. Biopolitics, management of Federal lands, and the conservation ofthe red-cockaded woodpecker. American Birds 40:1162-1168.

Johnsgard, P. A. 1979. Birds of the Great Plains. University of Nebraska Press, Lin-

coln. 539 pp.


Johnson, A. S., and J. L. Landers. 1982. Habitat relationships of summer resident birdsin slash pine flatwoods. Journal of Wildlife Management 46:416-428.

Krusac, D. L., J. M. Dabney, and J. J. Petrick. 1995. An ecological approach to recover-ing the red-cockaded woodpecker on southern National Forests. Pages 61-66 In D.L. Kulhavy, R. G. Hooper, and R. Costa, ed. Red-cockaded woodpecker: Recovery,ecology and management. Center for Applied Studies in Forestry, College of For-estry, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, TX. 551 pp.

Laskey, A. R. 1942. Nesting observations for 1942a la bird banding. Migrant 13:36-38.

LeBlond, R. J., J. O. Fussell, and A. L. Braswell. 1994. Inventory of the rare species,natural communities, and critical areas of the Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base,North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Department of Environ-ment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.

LeGrand, H. E., and K. J. Schneider. 1992. Bachman’s sparrow, Aimophila aestivalis.Pages 299-313 In K. J. Schneider and D. M. Pence, ed. Migratory nongame birdsof management concern in the Northeast. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NewtonComer, MA. 400 pp.

Lewis, C. E., and T. J. Harshbarger. 1976. Shrub and herbaceous vegetation after20 years of prescribed burning in the South Carolina coastal plain. Journal of RangeManagement 29:13-18.

Liu, J., J. B. Dunning, Jr., and H. R. Pulliam. 1995. Potential effects of a forest manage-ment plan on Bachman’s sparrows (Aimophila aestivalis): Linking a spatially ex-plicit model with GIS. Conservation Biology 9:62-75.

McKitrick, M. C. 1979. Territory size and density of Bachrnan’s sparrow in south cen-tral Florida. Florida Field Naturalist 7:33-34.

McNair, D.A. 1987. Egg data slips - are they useful for information on egg-laying datesand clutch size? Condor 89:369-376.

Meanley, B. 1959. Notes on Bachman’s sparrow in central Louisiana. Auk 76:232-234.

Meanley, B. 1988. Notes on Bachman’s sparrow in the Croatan National Forest. Chat52:2-3.

Meanley, B. 1989. Unique shape of a Bachman’s sparrow nest. Chat 53:12-13.

Mengel, R. M. 1965. The birds of Kentucky. Ornithological Monograph No. 3. Ameri-

can Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, DC. 581 pp.


Mills, G. S., J. B. Dunning, and J. M. Bates. 1989. Effects of urbanization on breedingbird community structure in southwestern desert habitats. Condor 91:416-428.

Mitchell, W. A. 1980. Evaluation of white-tailed deer and cattle diets in two southeast-ern pine forests. Ph.D. dissertation, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State.236 pp.

Myers, R. L. 1990. Scrub and high pine. Pages 150-193 In R. L. Myers and J. J. Ewel,ed. Ecosystems of Florida. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando.

National Geographic Society. 1983. Field Guide to the Birds of North America. Na-tional Geographic Society, Washington, DC. 464 pp.

Nicholson, C. P. 1976. The Bachman’s sparrow in Tennessee. Migrant 47:53-60.

Oberholser, H. C. 1974. The bird life of Texas. Vol. 2. University of Texas Press,Austin. 538 pp.

Odum, E. 1987. The Georgia landscape: A changing resource. Institute of Ecology,University of Georgia, Athens. 88 pp.

Peterjohn, B. G. 1987. The nesting 1987 season. American Birds 41:144.

Peters, H. S. 1936. A list of external parasites from birds of the eastern part of theUnited States. Bird-Banding 7:9-27.

Peterson, R. T. 1980. A field guide to the birds east of the Rockies. 4th edition.Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. 384 pp.

Platt, W. J., G. W. Evans, and M. M. Davis. 1988. Effects of fire season on flowering offorbs and shrubs in longleaf pine forests, Oecologia 76:353-363.

Platt, W. J., J. S. Glitzenstein, and D. R. Streng. 1991. Evaluating pyrogenicity and itseffects on vegetation in longleaf pine savannas. Proceedings of Tall Timbers FireEcology Conference 17:143-161.

Plentovich, S., J. W. Tucker, Jr., N. R. Holler, and G. E. Hill. 1998. Enhancing Bach-man’s sparrow habitat via management of red-cockaded woodpeckers. Journal ofWildlife Management 62:347-354.

Potter, E. F., J. F. Pamell, and R. P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. UniversityNorth Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 408 pp.

Probasco, G. E. 1978. Bird habitat - woody plant relations on Missouri limestoneglades. Pages 107-109 In D. C. Glenn-Lewin and R. Q. Landers, ed. Proceedings ofthe fifth Midwest Prairie Conference. Iowa State University, Ames. 230 pp.


Pulliam, H. R., J. B. Dunning, and J. Liu. 1992. Population dynamics in complex land-scapes: A case study. Ecological Applications 2:165-177.

Robbins, L. E., and R. L. Myers. 1992. Seasonal effects of prescribed burning in Florida: Areview. Tall Timbers Research Miscellaneous Publication 8.

Sprunt, A., and E. B. Chamberlain. 1970. South Carolina bird life. Second edition. Uni-versity of South Carolina Press, Columbia. 655 pp.

Stober, J. 1996. Territory dynamics and basic biology of the Bachman’s Sparrow (Aimo-phila ae.stivalis) at the Savannah River Site, South Carolina. M.S. thesis, Universityof Georgia, Athens. 108 pp.

Stoddard, H. L., Sr. 1978. Birds of Grady County, Georgia. Bulletin Tall Timbers Re-search Station 21:1-175.

Stokes, D., and L. Stokes. 1996. Stokes field guide to birds: Eastern region. Little,

Brown and Company, Boston and New York. 471 pp.

Tate, J., Jr. 1986. The blue list for 1986. American Birds 40:227-236.

The Nature Conservancy. 1995. Fort Stewart Inventory, Final Report. U.S. Departmentof Defense, Department of the Army, Headquarters 24th Mechanized Division, FortStewart, GA.

Toups, J. A., and J. A. Jackson. 1987. Birds and birding on the Mississippi Coast. Uni-

versity Press of Mississippi, Jackson. 303 pp.

Trame, A. 1997. Known and potential impacts of maneuver training, especially physical

disturbance, on threatened and endangered species. USACERL Technical Report

97/70. U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratories, Champaign, IL.

Tyler, B. P., and R. B. Lyle. 1934. A Bachman’s sparrow nest. Migrant 5:31.

U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratories (USACERL). 1994. Envi-

ronmental assessment of Army-wide management guidelines for the red-cockaded

woodpecker. USACERL Special Report EN-94/04. 52 pp. and appendices.

Waldrop, T. A., D. L. White, and S. M. Jones. 1992. Fire regimes for pine-grasslandcommunities in the southeastern United States. Forest Ecology and Management47:195-210.

Weston, F. M. 1968. Bachman’s sparrow. Pages 956-975 In A. C. Bent, ed. Life histo-ries of North American cardinals, grosbeaks, buntings, towhees, finches, sparrowsand allies. Part 2. U.S. National Museum Bulletin 237:603-1248.


West Virginia Department of Natural Resources. 1987. Vertebrate species of concern inWest Virginia. West Virginia Department of Natural Resources, Special report, Char-leston.

Willoughby, E. J. 1986. An unusual sequence of molts and plumages in Cassin’s andBachman’s sparrows. Condor 88:461-172.

Wilson, C. W., R. E. Masters, and G. A. Bukenhofer. 1995. Breeding bird response topine-grassland community restoration for red-cockaded woodpeckers. Journal ofWildlife Management 59:56-67.

Wolf, L. L. 1977. Species relationships in the avian genus Aimophila. American Orn-ithological Union, Ornithological Monographs No. 23, Washington, DC. 220 pp.

Zimmerman, J. L. 1988. Breeding season habitat selection by the Henslow’s sparrow(Ammodramus henslowii) in Kansas. Wilson Bulletin 100:17-24.


Personal Communications

Bors, Sargent Edwin E. 1997. Chief Game Warden, MCAS, Beaufort, SC. AlTN:NREAO, MCAS Beaufort, P.O. Box 55001, Beaufort, SC 29904-5001.

Cochran, Hank. 1996. Natural Resources Manager, P.O. Box 108, Naval Air Station,

Cecil Field, FL 33215. (904) 778-5451

Dunning, John B. 1998. Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue Univer-sity, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1159. (765) 494-3565

Dyck, Alan. 1996. Natural Resources Manager, Fort Pickett, Blackstone, VA 23824-5000.

Peacock, Lance. 1997. The Nature Conservancy, Arkansas. (501) 663-6699 ext. 30.

Shea, Stephen. 1996. Wildlife biologist, 325 CES/CEN, 119 Alabama Avenue, Tyndall

Air Force Base, FL. (904) 283-2641.


REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form ApprovedOMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden fwthis cdlsction of ihticm is eslimsted to aversgs 1 hwr per response, including thetimeforrevkving instructions, saatiing existing datssoum%s, gathering snd mdntsiningthe data needed, snd ccinpieting and reviewing the udl.sciicm of information. Ssnd cc+’nrn.sntsregarding this burdsn estimate w any other sspect of WIS cdlscdon of infcs’mation, including suggestionsfor rsdudng Uls burden, to Washington tieadqmrtsrs Sewic8s, Dirsctorste for information Operations snd Reports, 1215 Jefferson Datis Highway, Suite 1204, Atfington, VA 222024302, snd to theOflics of Mansgensent and Budget, Psprwork Rsduclion Pmjecl (070441SS), Wsshingtcm, DC 20503.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

September 1998 Final report

L TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Species Profile: Bachman’s Sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis) on MilitaryInstallations in the Southeastern United States

i. AUTHOR(S)

Wilma A. Mitchell

5. FUNDING NUMBERS

‘. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station3909 Halls Ferry RoadVicksburg, MS 39180-6199

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONREPORT NUMBER

Technical Report SERDP-98-11

1. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

Washington, DC 20314-1000

[1. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Available from National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.

2a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAltABIUTY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

1

3. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 wortfa)

The Bachman’s sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis) is a small ground-nesting sparrow that is endemic to the southeastern UnitedStates. The former breeding range extended into the midwestem and northeastern States but has contracted to its current general

limits of North Carolina, Kentucky, and centeral Arkansas. Birds winter along the lower Coastal Plain from North Carolina to

eastern Texas and south Florida. The Bachman’s sparrow is considered to be a species of special concern, as its population has

declined significantly since the 1930s. This species is most common in longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) savannas, which are

characterized by an open overstory and a ground cover of perennial grasses and forbs interspersed with a few shrubs; it also

occurs in other open habitat types with early successional vegetation. Bachman’s sparrows have been documented on at least

19 installations in the Southeast. This report is one of a series of Species Profiles being developed for threatened, endangered,

and sensitive species inhabiting plant communities in the southeastern United States. The work is being conducted as part of

the Department of Defense (DoD) Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP). The report is de-

signed to supplement information provided in plant community management reports for major United States plant communities

(Continued)

4. SUBJECT TERMS

Bachman’s sparrow SERDPDoD installations Species profileManagement techniques Threatened and Endangered speciesPlant communities F

7. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT

UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)Pras.cnbed by ANSI Std. 239-182S8-102

13. (Concluded).

found on military installations. Informationprovidedon the Henslow’ssparrowincludesstatus, life history and ecol-ogy, habitat requirements, impacts and causes of decline, habitat assessment techniques, inventory and monitoring,

and management and protection.

m] · The field sparrow (Spizella pusilla) and grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savan-na-urn) are...

Documents

Transcript of m] · The field sparrow (Spizella pusilla) and grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savan-na-urn) are...